The Net Decking Trap - Logical Fallacies

I want to start by apologizing for what is going to be an indepth analysis of logical fallacies, in relations to net decking in Legends of Runterra.

Be aware, this doesn't apply to games like mtg or hearthstone where net decks are actually just objectively better.

We are going to use Elusive burn as an example https://lor.mobalytics.gg/decks/brpb1t1la4s47cjpnfn0

Originally this list used to feature two potions two retreats and 0 zeds

These 4 cards or slots in the deck are what we call tech choices, they exist to counter the decks you are likely to run into on ladder

The only problem is that said slots can only exist as good in a specific time and space in which they are intended.

For example retreat is at it's best when it counters get excited which forces the opponent to go down a card, which is found in Heimer Vi

The play rate of Heimer Vi is lower than initially thought and we replace it with Zed which is better in every other instance

Therefore you are better off coming to these conclusions yourself because you will always be faster than the meta shifts.

Please feel free to discuss but keep it civil - heart you all

I came back to the game recently and I'm that kind of player who care about reasoning behind every card in a deck. In other words - a proud, but very careful netdecker. Average players who don't netdeck wrongly think they are smarter and creative, but they just ignore facts (stats) and play bunch of tech cards to hard counter one deck (very creative) and lose all other matchups, because their deck is simply shit, not even fun, because it doesn't win. 

A problem with LoR is that netdecking is still not developed enough, so people make even more mistakes than in HS. In HS majority of people netdeck the worst version (full of tech, day1, obscure, niche, eccentric cards), but because of general quality of HS net decks they still get a reasonable win-rate.

There are several sites with top pro decks. Then sites like Mobalytics, which seems the best one by far, but it says only streamers contribute data (?). LoR Guardian is another, but it's just more row data. Mobalytics has reports. Still, it's questionable how data is analysed. Probably good, but not good enough. General problems are: unrefined methods of collecting & engineering data, sample sizes, projected vs. expected (in an even field) win-rates, mulligan and card drawn win-rates stats. Even all this isn't enough, because for example win-rate of cards needs to be connected to synergy cards, up-times and other... We still miss all this, so biases of pros and data analysts are quite high (although very useful when it's the best we have). Proposed decks are often obsolete or some cards are not there for a reason, but randomly, accidentally.

Also, LoR has such mehanics that viability, synergies and usefulness of many cards is very high. Players play bad much easily than HS. So, it's even harder to discover what's really the best (if it's that needed at all). Still. I'd really like community would be able to develop data collecting more. Or the game isn't popular enough to hope for that to ever happen? 

It would be nice if we get a thread on OOC dedicated to more detailed and pedantic discussions on meta, decks, card choices...

It has more to do with the update frequency where Blizzard and Wizards have shown an unwillingness to provide meaningful balance changes every two weeks, Riot has been on it, and doing a great job. I would say right now there are very few things that feel over-tuned that means context is the biggest contributor to win rates at the moment.

As opposed to mtg where it's like literally 25 percent of people play this deck because it is optimal it cheats out mana and everything else is inferior by design.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/standard#paper

Quote From Tuscarora87

Average players who don't netdeck wrongly think they are smarter and creative, but they just ignore facts (stats) and play bunch of tech cards to hard counter one deck (very creative) and lose all other matchups, because their deck is simply shit, not even fun, because it doesn't win. 

It's impossible to have fun by losing most of the time. Johnny himself is confirming this by whining on netdeckers all the time. 

Quote From Tuscarora87

It's impossible to have fun by losing most of the time. Johnny himself is confirming this by whining on netdeckers all the time. 

1- ALL top tier decks were Johnny decks at some point;
2- A lot of people have fun on pulling some weird combo or playing certain cards, even if those only work less then 50% of the time; (Yasuo/Teemo decks before it was meta);
3- The concepts are not cut and dry.

I am mostly a Johnny myself with a Spike side that requires the deck i craft meet at least 51% winrate for me to play it. I have a lot of fun finding stuff no one else though it could be competitive viable and see how far i can get with it.
For example, take my Spider token deck, which was later called: "Endure Spiders". Its no exageration to say i am the father of this deck, as i was literally the first guy to discover and pilot it to very high ranks in a time NO ONE even knew that concept could be competitve. It wasn't listed on Mobalytic or any other site. It was only me alone, playing the deck, and very often most adversaries had no idea what they were facing until it was too late.
It was a TON of fun for me.
Then after some time, the deck shows up on Mobalytics as a tier B deck, having a somewhat unrefined list.
At this point someone playing against me could say i was netdecking, EVEN IF I AM PLAYING MY OWN CREATION.
Nowadays the deck is popular and optimized enough to the point it surpasses even my list. 

What i am playing right now is another Johnny deck: EZ/TF/R.I.Ptide. 
The deck is actually doing very well (i say it falls somewhere around tier A<->S) and was crafted with the help of many users in this very forum.
I would not be surprised if that deck concept appears someday on the radar as a possible strong netdeck option, just as Endure Spiders did.